Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight

Posted by timothy on from the at-least-the-travel's-free dept.

Richard_at_work writes "After losing his appeal to the UK Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago, Assange's lawyer was given leave to seek a reopening of the case on particular grounds — the UK Supreme Court has now rejected those grounds and upheld its earlier ruling that Assange should be extradited, which could happen in the next few days."

50 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Buggars! by xystren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to Team USA: World Police

    1. Re:Buggars! by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

      Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.
      Does the UK have an extradition arrangement with Sweden (in this case as part of the EU I would figure)? Yes.
      Would the Swedish legal system treat him appropriately from the UK perspective if convicted of this particular crime, and will he get appropriate process? Yes, but that's why they have an extradition agreement at all.

      At that point he's just delaying the inevitable. If not, then you'd have to kick one or both of Sweden and the UK out of the EU for not upholding the same basic sets of rights and rules. The question of whether or not the US is fabricating the whole thing can be addressed fairly in sweden (at least the UK would consider it fair).

    2. Re:Buggars! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are allegations.
      Mostly withdrawn.
      There is no indictment.
      Required for extradition.
      You presume guilt.
      In the absence of evidence or formal charges in court.

      It looks like Jack Lint is warming up his instruments, in Information Retrieval.

      I'm glad that you endorse and encourage this sort of thing. Let's get Tuttle, next.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Buggars! by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

      This.

      The guy let his own ego lead him into a situation that enabled him to get caught in a honey trap. He got a little bit of PR out of it, but he and his organization would have been much better off had he realized how susceptible he was to manipulation.

      Ironic, given that he worked at Seatec Astronomy :)

    4. Re:Buggars! by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2

      Would the alleged crime be illegal in the UK? Yes.

      Please cite the law in question and show how it applies to Assange's specific behavior of not wearing a condom after promising he would.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    5. Re:Buggars! by crazyjj · · Score: 2

      and will he get appropriate process?

      Yeah, Sweden's going to give him due process. They're duly going to process him on a plane to the U.S., where he'll be thrown in prison forever.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    6. Re:Buggars! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      So does the UK...

    7. Re:Buggars! by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US has an extradition treaty with the UK too, so I wonder why they are taking such an indirect route.

      My best guess is that they feel they will have an easier time getting Sweeden to extradite him on hazier charges (since the DoJ has yet to find anything to actually charge him with) and the UK is a bit more obsessed with proper use of law (a rather old and neurotic British trait).

    8. Re:Buggars! by Kijori · · Score: 2

      According to Wikipedia:

      There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.

      The law in England on consent obtained by deception is complex and unwieldy. I am not an expert, but I don't think lying about whether you are wearing a condom would be sufficient to vitiate consent. Even if that particular charge would not be a crime in England and Wales, however, if the allegations are true he would still potentially be guilty of rape and sexual assault.

    9. Re:Buggars! by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2

      It is Swedish law. Not American not british but Swedish law.

      I was responding to the claim that the alleged crime would be illegal under UK law.

      Is just as clueless as you are regarding Swedish law.

      Evidently not as clueless as you are concerning the context of this discussion.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    10. Re:Buggars! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:

      Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

      The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

      With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

      In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

      Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

      From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/

      Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf

    11. Re:Buggars! by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if the charges are completely fabricated by someone, anyone (CIA the women in question etc.) it's absurd to think that the UK would refuse extradition to Sweden for something like this.

      Oh, it's not extradition for the alleged crimes that has people worried. It's the fact that he was already detained for investigation for a month in Sweden until the case was closed and he was permitted to leave the country. Now they want him back. Are they going to repeat the same process with different prosecutor's until the outcome changes? That's suspicious to the point of being terrifying.

    12. Re:Buggars! by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      But he didn't commit any crimes in the UK, so there's no grounds for extradition. The U.S. has to get him into Sweden first before they can try to get ahold of him. (Or so the story goes.)

      BTW it's ridiculous to claim "rape" just because a guy didn't wear a condom. The two ladies *consented* to have bare sex... nobody forced them to.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    13. Re:Buggars! by Kharny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Impossible, sweden cannot extradite him without UK consent. (illegal to extradite after you been extradited from different country in european law)

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    14. Re:Buggars! by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fundamental issue is that these are different interpretations of the law than those reached in hundreds of other past similar cases, including some far more aggressive than this.

      I feel sorry for those girls who have been told by the courts they weren't raped in far less pleasant ordeals than this, yet this, a much more borderline case, is affirmed as rape.

      It's frankly disgusting.

    15. Re:Buggars! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      I'm away from the desktop right now so I cant post citations, but I can think of several cases where removal of or tampering with a condom without consent for that particular action has been successfully prosecuted as rape in the UK, so no there isn't a fundamental issue of differing interpretations here at all.

    16. Re:Buggars! by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      So does the UK...

      Not like Sweden. Sweden has an arrangement with the USA which allows them to temporarily transfer somebody in their custody to the USA for questioning on charges not related to crimes committed in Sweden. This "temporary surrender" bypasses the normal legal processes needed for extradition.

      Cites: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

      Bottom line: The easiest way for the USA needs to get their hands on him is to get him into Sweden. After that he can vanish. And it's all perfectly legal.

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:Buggars! by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Impossible, sweden cannot extradite him without UK consent. (illegal to extradite after you been extradited from different country in european law)

      Nope. Sweden has a special treaty with the USA which allows them to hand him over with almost no legal process: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

      --
      No sig today...
    18. Re:Buggars! by Soporific · · Score: 2

      How many women have been charged with rape for tampering with a condom because they want to get pregnant? I'd be curious to see how evenly this law is applied.

      ~S

    19. Re:Buggars! by Xest · · Score: 2

      Well I'm sure if you go down to your local rape crisis centre and say that you'll find no women who disagree, nope, none at all. Anyone who has been involved with rape victims, either because they themselves were raped and went to the crisis centre and met other victims, or simply because they like to help them out will be able to point you to many cases, perhaps even their own.

      Seriously, if you hate Assange, that's fine. But don't talk bullshit and trivialise the issue with it simply because you want to try and bolster the view that the decision against Assange was nothing unusual.

      The only point you could really bring up that would be valid is that it's usually jury cases that decide this sort of thing, but perhaps there's the problem, that Assange didn't get the benefit of having the case decided by his peers.

      See this article, which highlights the problem well and has many parallels to Assange's case:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-422969/Not-guilty-rape-surgeon-slept-women-night.html

      Still, I look forward to those citations that prove that there has never been any inconsistency in this sort of thing when you're back at your desk and that all, if not at least the vast majority of such decisions have been the same.

    20. Re:Buggars! by Aryden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually this is quite incorrect. The UK has quite strict rule regarding extradition, generally they will only extradite someone if the alleged crime is a crime in both the UK and the requester country. This was the initial argument brought to the extradition hearings and why the UK decided to hear it all out first. On the other hand, Sweden and the US have some very loose and flimsy extradition agreements. You can be extradited from Sweden to the US for virtually anything. The US and the UK have extradition agreements but they are far more rigid and complex. The US would have had very little luck getting him out of the UK.

      The real problem here is that once you read all of the available information and do maybe 5 minutes worth of research, you start to draw a picture that this really is a fabrication. Whether they have done it for attention or whether they do it for a government, doesn't really matter. But they do not decide to seek police assistance until AFTER they have texted each other, after Ardin throws a party FOR Assange, after she tweets bragging about the party, her guests and Assange.

      Now, do I believe that the behavior would be abhorrent if true? Yes, most certainly. Do I draw a personal conclusion about the events that took place, the two women and Assange? No, I wasn't there, I do not know the truth of the matter and I will not mentally convict of raping a woman when I have absolutely no clue as to whether or not he really did it.

    21. Re:Buggars! by santax · · Score: 2

      Yes, the USA fried Europa from Nazi's... Hey dickhead, what year did the USA enter the war? Ever heared of Lend Lease? The Aussies, Canadians, Brits, Polish and Russians did a whole lot more then you fags.

    22. Re:Buggars! by Elldallan · · Score: 2

      Swedish law requires that for someone to be extradited to another country(not including Denmark, Norway or Finland) the act has to be criminal in Sweden as well and punishable by at least a year in prison, also both the Supreme Court AND the Swedish Government must consent to extradite an individual, if either of those instances does not approve of the extradition then it will not happen.

      Assange has yet to be accused for a crime, the police wants to hold interrogations with Assange to help determine whether a crime has been committed or not. Rape and molestation falls under public prosecution in Sweden so the government is by law required to do a thorough investigation and that cannot happen until Assange is returned to Sweden for questioning.
      If and when Assange is accused of a crime he will have his day in court and if the accusations are fabricated they can be unraveled in court and he will be released.

  2. It's sad by axlr8or · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want to live in a world where people fear the truth. As you can see, it is a problem that the lies only get bigger and bigger. Assange shouldn't fear going to court to display the truth. But everyone knows its just a stunt to get him put away.

  3. Re:Assange Kardashian? by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

    There we go. If he marries one of them he's off the hook.

    Well, he'll probably wisely choose the death penalty anyway...

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  4. Re:Hang on. by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sex without a condom isn't rape in most countries including the UK. He is wanted for questioning related to that, but isn't charged with any crime in any country.

  5. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by oPless · · Score: 2

    Didn't one of the women later withdraw those allegations and run off to Israel somewhere to hide?

  6. Re:Hang on. by Baloroth · · Score: 2

    Continuing to have sex with someone after they express their unwillingness, however, can be a crime (and might be classified as "rape"). Why the woman in question chose to protest is irrelevant. He isn't being charged with having sex without a condom: he is being charged with having sex over the protests of his partner.

    You can claim she is accusing him not because she feels genuinely violated, but because of political reasons, and you may be right, but what he did could be considered a crime in Sweden and the UK, and just about everywhere else in the western world, depending on the facts of the case. But then, that is why he is being deported for questioning: so they can figure out what those facts are.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  7. Re:Guilty? by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    That, of course, is not the actual charge. The actual charge itself being just one of four.

    The meme "he's being charged for having sex without a condom" is a deliberate attempt to skew the actual situation. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything serious. I'm not saying he's not. But I'm just pointing out, the *actual* charges are that 1) the woman *only consented* to sex with a condom but he only pretended to use one, violating the terms of her consent; 2) that he started having sex with another woman in her sleep; 3) that he held one woman down in a sexual manner against her consent; and 4) that he rubbed his penis against one girl without her consent.

    Again, it's not "stranger in the bushes, knife up to the throat rape" that's being charged, but the charges are not "he had sex without a condom".

    --
    I am Melllvar, Keeper of the Tapes!
  8. Why do people defend this person? by SierraQ · · Score: 2

    If he committed a crime against some women he deserves whatever he gets and he needs to stop trying to hide because it makes him out to be a coward unwilling to face the consequences of his actions. No doubt his involvement with wikileaks is fanning the flames here but lets not forget that according to ex-staffers he's tried to change that organization into a dictatorship of sorts and attacked those who questioned his decision or motives. These are signs of desperation and paranoia. Wikileaks will survive just fine without its corrupt dictator. In fact it will probably become better.

    I have no more sympathy for him than I do Joran van der Sloot.

  9. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    [citation needed]

    (or vagina)

  10. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here you go

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  11. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I should also point out that if you google her name, there are allegations of some serious ties to the CIA via her odd history of involvement with anti-Castro groups in Cuba. Can't imagine why a CIA operative would be in the West Bank with an innocent Christian group trying to get close to Palestinian leaders, though.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  12. Re:Guilty? by Hatta · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'm not surprised that they're bending over backwards to find a way to rid themselves of Assange. When has any British citizen been convicted of rape under similar circumstances?

    âoethe fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.â

    I don't even know where to start with this logic. Rape is illegal because of the state of mind of the victim, not the state of mind of the aggressor.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Nope, but sexi without a condom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And, no, she wasn't asleep. Or were you there observing?

    Look, we know that he pulled the kecks of the USA government down and showed everyone the skidmarks. But putting a vendetta on a bloke for pointing out your failures as a country is even worse behaviour than the despicable acts JA told everyone about.

    1. Re:Nope, but sexi without a condom by luncheon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you even read any of the cables? 'boring diplomatic gossip' is the only stuff the mainstream media wanted to publish, there's more interesting stuff there like Shapiro's involvement on the 2002 Chavez coup d'etat, smear campaigns to Ullanta Umala and Rafael Correa, and so on and so forth...

  14. Oh, bullshit, AC. by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Informative

    And... cue the ignorant douchebags shouting about how this is just a ploy for the US gov't to get its hands on him.

    Cue the authoritarian douchebags who are hoping that no one will notice that the guy hasn't even been charged yet.

    Because it's only FUD if you disagree with it.

    Do you own a mirror?

    1. Re:Oh, bullshit, AC. by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

      You realize they questioned Assange at the time and released him, right? You realize he asked for permission to leave the country and it was granted, right? You realize that it's extremely rare for people to be deported without even being charged, right?

      Right?

    2. Re:Oh, bullshit, AC. by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Cue the conspiracy theorists who don't realize you don't have to be

      Cue the police state apologist bullshit. How does your authoritarian mind grapple with the dichotomy of:

      1) This person may have committed a serious crime so we want him extradited
      2) But so unimportant that we haven't bothered to charge him

      You must be a fan of the Obama Administration throwing Americans onto assassination lists, because they were horrible people who needed a good killing. But not so horrible that the DOJ bothered to indict them or try them in absentee. Who's still ignoring the fact that Assange was questioned by Swedish authorities at the time, released, and then got permission from Swedish authorities to leave the country.

  15. Re:Sorry? WHAT sexual deviancy? by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

    Shagging women? Most men: guilty.

    Wanna bet? $100, and we decide the winner with a /. poll...

  16. Why don't you look at what's actually going on? by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Assanage hasn't even been charged with a crime
    2. Which wouldn't be rape, but "sex by surprise" if he were charged
    3. He got permission to leave the country and it was granted
    4. He's offered to answer questions remotely - offers that have been rebuffed

    So, does this look like a normal prosecution or a witch hunt to you?

    1. Re:Why don't you look at what's actually going on? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Extraditions for questioning are not unusual

      Of course they are, as a Google search not based on the fallacy of anecdotes will quickly determine. First world nations don't forcibly remove people and place them in another country's custody for shits and giggles.

      As far as the crime, I take it you are an expert in Swedish law?

      I take it you're still ignoring the fact that he was questioned and released, and then granted permission to leave the country? And that charges were already dismissed before being brought by another prosecutor? Or that one of the witnesses has possibly recanted and left the country? Wouldn't want inconvenient parts of the storyline to interfere with the witch hunt....

  17. Re:Hang on. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    He's being extradited for questioning, something perfectly routine.

    Also the sex without condom is not the only charge:

    "The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AAâ(TM)s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assangeâ(TM)s alleged initial use of force against her lawful."

  18. Re:Nothing Doing by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    They weren't prostitutes because they didn't ask for money. Had this happened in ancient Israel, it depends on your translation on the verse. He could be obliged to pay her father 50 shekels of silver and be obliged to marry her and may never divorce. However, Exodus 22:16-17 is a lot clearer on the matter. "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."

    Clearly this happened in modern Sweden where Biblical law does not apply, but if you're going to post religious trolls at least get your facts right.

  19. Bingo by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No doubt he was easily setup as they knew he was massively vain and sexually creepy. That's the real tragedy of Wikileaks; they are forever tarred by this fundamentally flawed human being.

    But to believe this has *nothing* to do with US hegemony is truly ignorant - especially in light of Hillary Clinton just happening to 'drop by' Sweden this week. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange touches down at Gitmo instead.

    1. Re:Bingo by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The whole idea of him being set up is silly.

      Is it as silly as the idea that INTERPOL would get involved with his extradition when he has not been charged with a crime? I mean, not charges that haven't been dropped...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. Re:Hang on. by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    Sex without a condom isn't the alleged crime. Sex without consent it, and whether consent was given is rather complex here.

  21. Re:Hang on. by scot4875 · · Score: 2

    The other charges are even more ludicrous. Pressing his erect penis against her while they were in bed counts as 'molestation'? Similarly with laying on top of the other one? (Just laying on top of her -- not forcing anything on her). A lot of women actually enjoy that stuff!

    Sex is enough of a legal minefield in the US; I pity Swedish guys. You can have consensual sex with someone, wake up in the morning and express indication that you'd like more (and be met with denial), then part ways amicably and a few days later the woman can decide, "you know what, I didn't like being rubbed up against. Rape!" It's a mockery of actual rape cases.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  22. Re:Hang on. by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the woman wanted to have sex with him but only with a condom but didn't care enough to enforce that beyond the honor system. In your mind that constitutes the cruel and vicious physical attack that is rape? I'm sorry but there is no set of circumstances under which the woman wants to be penetrated and it is still rape. There are few where she could find out something later that is a different crime for instance if the man had a life threatening STD but it doesn't magically become rape as well. Actual rape is a vicious crime on par with attempted murder. There are real rape victims out there and this demeans them.

    You can't rape by technicality. Rape isn't about a technical contract of consent it's about physically forcing yourself on to an unwilling sex partner. If you knowingly force yourself on an unwilling partner as a condition of doing something for them or not telling their partner about an affair or some other terms THAT is rape.

  23. Re:Hang on. by shaitand · · Score: 2

    You can't be in bed with someone you've had sex with in a non-sexual manner and pressing your penis against someone is not molestation if that person is laying in bed with you and continues doing so. It's an advance, it might be an unwelcome advance but that isn't criminal.

    "To be more specific, it's that the girl insisted he wear one but he didn't. Thereby violating the conditions on which her consent to sex rested."

    Ludicrous was right. There was no exaggeration there. Sorry that is grounds to consider him an ass not rape. Rape isn't a sexual consent contract violation its a brutal physical and mental attack on an unwilling party. The GP was right, this kind of thing demeans real rape victims.

    This stuff isn't criminal by any sane measure and if it were it would be on par with jaywalking. What next, it becomes rape to misrepresent marital and financial status to get a woman to sleep with you? It becomes rape to misrepresent anything because her consent was given under false terms? Rape is not some personal responsibility scapegoat for women. If it's important he not wear a condom you actually make sure he is wearing one. If its important to you to not have unanticipated results that fall within a reasonable expectation of what could happen when getting drunk at a party with friends then don't get drunk at the party. Why is a drunk driver responsible for the outcome of their choice to become intoxicated but a woman is not? Sorry, if you got gangbanged at the frat house after you got wasted on jello shots and passed out on the couch, you shouldn't be blaming frat boys. You should be owning the completely foreseeable consequences of your irresponsible acts.